On May 04 2011 13:43 Cartel wrote:
Day9 had nothing to bring to the conversation, and in my opinion is totally wrong about his ideas that ALL GAMES ARE BALANCED no matter what, simply because we havent discovered it yet in meta game.

So let me give Day9 and example. What if Zerglings did 50 dmg. Would each race find a way to make the overall game balanced? Would it just take time? Of course its not balanced, and should be fixed. But Day9 would think its balanced we just haven't figured it out yet.

Day[9] isn't stating that all games (read: SC2) are completely balanced. If you were listening to his points earlier, he acknowledged that there might well be some imbalance, and I'm sure those of us that listened to IdrA's examples and have our own experiences can agree.

But Day[9] IS stating that it's rather useless to discuss about them, especially when in an emotional state. IdrA's always been somewhat of an emotional player, and since he has the results and skill to back that up, I say more power to him. But when he lets his emotions seep into discussions like this, it really establishes nothing. We get to see his opinion (which most of us already knew) and nothing more. Day[9] is more of a proponent of having people try to figure out solutions to the perceived imbalance problems while the Blizzard guys analyze and decide what does and doesn't need to be fixed. This seems to be the much more logical route when you realize that a podcast like SotG isn't a successful vehicle for this sort of discussion at all; if these discussions are to take place, they're to take place somewhere more official if we want them to make any difference. THAT's what Day[9] is stating.

It doesn't matter who says or does it, or where it happens, right is right and wrong is wrong.

Doesn't matter if Idra is emotional, or if it is discussed in SotG. His arguements were valid and solid. Disagree? Then refute him with logic.

Day9 says "go spaniwa build b/c its safe vs possible abuse."

Idra says it isn't good vs FE but admits its good defensivly.

Idra must want a build that can be good defensivly and offensively. That's fair right?

This is the problem with idra he just wants a build that is safe against everything T or P can do, which is just bullshit. T and P should be rewarded for taking risks if Z doesn't take a risk then he deserves to lose.

Idra is seriously stupid.

He wants either:

1 - A build that is perfectly safe and doesn't get you behind going into the macro game;

2 - A way to scout and respond correctly to what your opponent is doing and go into the macro game with an advantage or even.

Sounds pretty fair to me.

Except that neither of them are fair. You want to play ultra safe and never risk dying to early aggression? Then play defensively, and don't go balls to the walls econ. You want a really strong econ? Then go balls to the walls econ and risk dying to early aggression.

You get three choices: Econ, Military Power, Tech. You can have any one in large amounts to the detriment of the other two. You can have two in medium amounts, you can't have all three, and you can't have two in large amounts.

Protoss and Terran are basically choosing either high econ, or high tech, or high military every game against zerg, and zergs are trying to go econ/military at the same time. They're going to fall behind in one of the two, that's the way the game actually works, and that's how it should work. Zerg would be overpowered as shit if they got to have Econ and Military in huge amounts. Hell, they already have the best econ growth rate of all three races.

You want a guaranteed scout that there's nothing the opponent can do to prevent? Protoss can't scout until hallucinate or observer, terran can scan and either whiff or get lucky, but it costs them 270 minerals each time. They can go air and fly around, but that can get stopped as easily as an overlord can. I might agree that overlord speed should be a hatchery available upgrade, but that's about all I can see.

This should NOT BE A CHOICE YOU DO AND NEVER LOOK BACK.

You should be able to define your build based on what your opponent is doing. If you have to define and then face the consequences, then it is NOT a strategy game..... It is a BLIND BUILD ORDER counter game.... and I don't think you wanted to say that......

Warrice

United States565 Posts

May 04 2011 05:19 GMT

#18009

tyler and day9 got rolled by eg today

drox22

129 Posts

May 04 2011 05:19 GMT

#18010

On May 04 2011 14:14 Jotoco wrote:

Show nested quote +

Nope.

If he does a risky/all in build and you SCOUT IT IN TIME, you should be ahead. If EVERY TIME I go for a risky/ all in and my opponent goes eco I am ahead, then it is a coin flip and there is no need to play the game, we always could just flip coins and award the money.

Like Rock/Paper/Scissors. It is perfectly balanced, but there is NO WAY it can be a competitive sport, because there is no skill involved. You choose a "weapon" and the you either win or lose. If it happened in SC2 (you choose a build and either win or lose there) then it is no point to play!

Show nested quote +

NO, that is NOT the ideal solution. The ideal solution is 2: A way to scout and respond correctly. But either of the two answers provide a balanced game.

Their approach is different, 1 (having a build that CAN defend anything) assumes the difference in outcomes comes from MICRO, NOT BUILD ORDER WIN.
2 (having scouting possible) assumes good scouting and a good reaction time will get you safe.

BOTH will have a balanced game as an outcome, but you people don't really want to use your brains to think about it.

If there were a way to always scout all ins what would be the point of taking a risk in the first place? It would completely nullify all ins but all ins are part of the game, get used to it.

Goibon

New Zealand8185 Posts

May 04 2011 05:19 GMT

#18011

Seriously what Tyler is saying is completely consistent with this official TL thread

How is there any debate over this?

READ THE THREAD.

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=117332